the three people's? actually has no official position. other leaders won't listen to him. the two monarchs from the kingdom i have referenced row hahn and gun door, they have in one case gone to the more power for free kingdoms people. he has been seduced if you will. the leader row hahn has been he which by an agent, and other wizard who i mentioned and is fighting furiously and pursuing diplomacy to get these weaker incompetent leaders to listen to him saying we are really going to a very deep and dark place. we have not prepared properly for the war that is coming and for complex reasons the confidence and confidence weakens the people and makes them more prone to aware they will lose. notice the comparison with iraq and 1914 is really quite apt.

weak leadershileadershi p and incompetence and warren susan might say tolkien cheated. he was making this all up about world war i. if he were still alive he would get quite cranky with us for saying it but how about that? you can't say anything about iraq. he never saw iraq. it happened 30 years after he was gone. >> now i would like to add with what you began the book with which is in this most recent election in iran that when there was considerable consternation about how the election went, the state aired the lord of the rings in an effort to pacify people but he didn't have that effect. what happened to? >> the tremendous irony is that while the state, the ahmadinejad regime says they don't get many western movies. these movies are hotter than the sun and everybody is watching them. of course years after they came out of the west, they came out in early 2000 it was 2009, here

is the irony. the seikh pokes the movies out there that they should have had some of their own people watch them very carefully. what the movies do, when the movies are about ursula freedom they argue in favor of democracy and on as practices and fair treatment as in a combination of injustice, they would hardly be something you would show people to try to calm them down. what happens of course is a boomerang effect. people look at these movies and they see messages within them as in we ought to resist. we shouldn't be pacified by this. yes we are entertained and it's a sorcery fantasy movie and arguably the best long movie returned it became one of those pictures was a great action movie and yes they were right to would be better off showing top gun or something out of schwarzenegger

if they wanted to shut them down. >> thank you so much patrick james for being with us and again the book is called "the international relations of middle-earth" learning from 'lord of the rings'". it's -- this has been the scholar circle and i maria. see you next week. >> thank you so much. up next on booktv samuel gregg argues that our elected leaders don't find the courage to reform the economy and government spending soon, the u.s. could find itself in the same terrible economic situation as many european countries do today. this is just over an hour. [applause] >> thank you john for your very kind introduction and the invitation to speak at the heritage foundation today. it's a great privilege to be

here. i have always been a great admirer of heritage and the council and in many cases the friendship of many people here at heritage for a very long time i have also admired the way that heritage works across policy areas so that you really do here and integrated message. not least among which i think is the intention of the heritage foundation to the power of culture, by which i mean people believe ideas, habits and expectations in the way that these achieve some form of institutional expression. this issue of culture and how it relates to the economy is at the heart of my book, "becoming europe" because at one level becoming europe is certainly about what has happened in europe and why it is now regarded as the sick man of the global economy. my book is also about how some of these cultural and economic

trends are starting to manifest themselves in the united states, particularly over the past five years. and in some respects i think it's rather ironic that america is seemingly drifting in this direction of economic europeanization. because whether the colossal level is dead the increasingly unaffordable welfare state, struggling banking systems, soaring levels of unemployment, stagnation or low economic growth, double and even triple dip recessions, violence and riots etc. etc., there is a widespread sense i see that what europe is experience king is more of a recession. instead i think there's a sense that western europe present economic crisis reflects some deeper traumas. and not terminally because of external pressures but rather the inherent contradictions and

his functionalities encouraged by what i call european economic culture overlong period of time. all of that is to say that if america's economic culture as i call it continues to drift in the same direction, i think we can assume faithfully that over time some trends that you see in europe will start to manifest themselves in the united states and that i think is what america means when they use phrases like europeanization or we are becoming like europe. today i want to do three things. the first thing i want to do is explain what i mean by the phrase becoming europe. the second thing i want to do is to sketch out where some similar trends are manifesting themselves in the united states and since i'm at the heritage foundation and in the spirit of optimism, i want to suggest how america might be able to avoid going down the same path.

now a good place to think to start in explaining european economic culture is with david cameron's recent speech about britain's future and the european union. now the speech was about many things, but i think the speech mattered in as much as it represented yet another missed opportunity by a major european politician to address unequivocally a problem that perhaps is even more fundamentally dangerous for britain and much of the rest of europe than taming the e.u.'s superstate tendencies. this is the problem of attitudes and how the institutional expression in the economy. because as i illustrate in "becoming europe" the prevailing conviction across most of europe is that the state is the primary

way in which we address common problems and meet our responsibilities and obligations to our fellow citizens. that such obligations might be realized outside the realm of politics doesn't apparently occurred to large numbers of european political leaders including i have to say a considerable number of the center-right european politicians. so in this regard i have often wondered what -- would think if he read a particularly important book that was written 180 years ago by one of his compatriots. because although it's about the new world, democracy in america was sent written for an american audience. alexis de tocqueville's intended audience was europe.

so i think you would be astonished to learn how the americans observed by de tocqueville dealt with problems that were beyond an individual's capacity to address but also resolvable by things like trade and commoners. 19th century american -- address these types of problems that the habit of free association instead of simply expecting government officials. for de tocqueville the contrast with his native france was simply astounding. he said this. whoever is ahead of some new undertaking you see the government in france, in the united states you will be sure to find the free association. now, as no less than adam smith heard, there are certain things that can finally be done by the government. but the constant equivalence of the value of what many europeans called solidarity and the

equivalence of solidarity with spending issues, government programs and public sector agents is surely one of europe's biggest long-term headaches. if only because such expectations on the part of the state justified through regulatory and welfare state constant and endless expansion despite the fiscally untenable burden of breach which should now be obvious to even the most submissive of brussels -- unfortunately, it's not just most of europe's political class who think this way. millions of ordinary europeans share this mindset. take for example mr. cameron's own backyard. scotland is currently dominated by two political parties who are

more socially democratic but labour labor and scottish nationalist don't control scottish politics because scotland conservatives are rather adept. they are after all elected to parliament by people who apparently want social democratic policies regard was of the long-term economic and moral cost. now five years ago, a former white house chief of staff famously reminded us quote, you never want a serious crisis to go to waste, unquote. this is something that europe leaders have declined to take. because very few of them seem interested in using their country's severe economic challenges as a type of circuit breaker to articulate a grand vision of why the economy and society needs to be liberated from almighty government.

instead what you find is most european politicians when they are presenting things like austerity measures, they generally present these changes as necessary evils, embarked upon with considerable reluctance so that we can get back to the way things used to be. now one reason for this i think is that many of european politicians know, they know that appeals to greater economic liberty and smaller government simply don't resonate enough western europeans. and in recent decades, economists such as douglas north and -- had illustrated the economic significance of a point made by de tocqueville that while morals and policies matter, they come over time to reflect what the majority of people in its hypocrisy value, for better or for worse. now, like many other people

edmund phillips concluded a long time ago that contemporary european economy are generally less productive than america because of institutional banks, things like large welfare state, heavy labor market regulations, large public-sector bureaucracies etc. etc., but this can't explain everything. european countries to use his phrase were not a bunch of banner republics nor did they lag behind the united states when it came to classic predictors of growth such as the existence of the rule of law. his intuition was that the differences had to come down to america's economy being influenced by a culture which valued things like freedom and risk-taking and they started to drill down on some of the date of the surveyed american and

european attitudes towards these things. what he found was that when it came to things like change, competition and notions of freedom more generally, he found that americans were much more favorably inclined to want these things than most europeans. i came away with the impression that the differences across countries with respect to certain well-defined institutions work not as important as prevailing differences in economic culture. he then speculated that economic cultures can become so entrenched, those people who actually lived within them ,-com,-com ma their minds become closed to any other type of alternative possibilities. this brings me to the second part of my burn marks today, which is how european attitudes are starting to gain ground in america. study after study after study after study outside show in my

book shows a marked shift of americans away from favorable views of free enterprise and markets towards what you might call more social democratic positions. to give you one example, in 2011, one international polling firm a very respected firm released the results of surveys and the different countries attitudes towards the modern economy. ..

>> expressed favorable views of commerce in the free market. by 2010 that figure had fallen at a 44%. with young americans the trend is more market. no doubt these apparent chefs of opinion are owed to the 2008 financial crisis. but as i remind readers it has always been since the progressive list era of a strain of skepticism of free

enterprise and markets among political and intellectual elite. not to mention a considerable body of opinion that primarily associates concern for other people with collective state action. judging from the second inaugural address, the mindset of perpetual security seems to be shared from the white house occupants not to mention millions of americans who voted during 2012. this goes to a deeper, existential problems that european nations have failed to master, which america is struggling with the crisis that flows from the unhealthy nexus of democracy on one hand and the fact we live in a

culture where people assume as a matter of right they are entitled to certain things from the government about too many questions asked how to pay for it. it is proving toxic for much of europe but it constitutes a danger to america is economic future. there is a purely economic dimension. with government constantly spending more than they raised through taxation, borrowing money is how they make up the difference. in european countries the debt burden affects the government's ability to meet their financial obligations. thing sub regional

governments are trying to skip payments they owe to businesses. but americans should consider through 2013 america's public debt was insane at the 16 point* $4 trillion. the real figure is probably higher once you have the unfunded future liabilities like social security in the existing obligation of bankrupt states like california and illinois. but there are more subtle and cultural forces in western europe serves as exhibit a. with the contemporary modern warfare states origen's origen's, some of the

biggest expansions occurred after 1945. giving a the yearning of economic security and world wars and depression year earnings through security should not surprise us. but what was surprising is how quickly european politicians recognizing the state's ability to provide social programs and subsidies as a way to build reliable constituencies. the left and the right realized they could attract support to make promises like subsidies, unemployment benefits, regulations and government jobs. sound familiar? this is by increased

taxation and when that did not cover it debt was a means that the shortfall was covered. one justification for democracy provides ways to hold governments accountable when they do not accord with our wishes. but what happens when a citizen tuesday's mechanisms to encourage and officials to use the state to provide citizens with whatever they want? >> when elected officials provide then demanded security we use it as a tool for constituencies to be relied upon. the end result should not

surprise us. with welfare and regulation with the expanding number of beneficiaries until things get so bad there is no alternative. but there is a political problem that people see this day as the primary provider of economic security, restraint of spending is politically difficult. why? anyone who promises to use intervention in real terms it is at a severe electoral disadvantage. as famously limited 2007 womack we know what we have

to do but we don't know how to get reelected once we have done it quote. if people with security through the state to have the desire if 51 percent of the population is to resist electoral rejection or rioters running amok in the streets of athens. it is very tempting to see this as a western european problem as it is a continent where any center-right government's are a specially -- essentially social democratic intervention is seen as normal across the

political spectrum. can anyone seriously denied politicians including conservatives also play the game or americans have developed inflated expectations of what the government owes them? and not just those that regard any streamlining of social security as a human rights violation but those american businesses who pervert to pursue corporate welfare instead of competing in the marketplace. now i have thoroughly depressed you i will move on to the third part of my remarks. how can america break this nexus? it is essential to make long

overdue decisions about government spending that recently we have avoided managed to make. at the elemental level surely what we need is significant attitude change somehow government and legislators have to stop public finances as the tracking tool they will not do that unless to things the american people to not want to head down the path of european in general but if enough americans are willing to embrace what that means at the level of specifics, even self-described limited government when it comes to reducing subsidies and

regulations that specifically benefit their industry their town or state. in that sense the bigger challenge for ordinary americans that we need to accept our participation cannot vote for whoever promises to give up the most stuff. if we are unwilling to use our democratic freedoms responsibly americans seriously risk what one german academics -- expressed the prevailing of mr. -- western europe. what he meant the citizens' vote for those politicians

that used a power to give the supporters what they want other people's expense. that translates into tax increases and growing welfare state corporate welfare and a colossal burden to our children. welcome to greece in the state of california and the state of illinois. what is interesting long-term is americans understood these challenges and went beyond period economics. thomas jefferson for example, there is no model of personal financial rectitude. he understood the threat of excessive public debt jefferson wrote '' map we must not let our rulers lotus with perpetual that.

we must make between economy and liberty and servitude ''. much of congress seems unable and unwilling to choose economy and the liberty. but perhaps the most serious question is whether enough american citizens are willing to choose non serfdom were fair happy to continue to drift toward the failed project otherwise known as european social model or social democracy. at present the jury is out. here i conclude how is america avoid going down the path of europe? it is a question of

incentives i am not a philosophical materialist i do believe there is free will but if incentives are in line with the direction it is harder to persuade people not to follow them. the more america moves in a covert social direction the harder it is to persuade one negative americans it is not tenable it points to policies that embody economic incentives for people to be creative or competitive and not demand a subsidies and tariffs. that said policy is important but it is not enough. those who want america to

become western europe those who want this are much better they have the vision theme. to aspire for certain policies matter how counterproductive for destructive such policies turned out to be. by many conservatives and free marketers are good at policy. some by difficult to move beyond efficiency arguments it can rival the appeal to corrupted social justice. it is powerful and western europe but has made considerable inroads the

american public opinion. there are such sayings as known economic incentives in terms of financial reward but it could also be seen as a good person to be one way other than another it is the moral choice. it means as seen by a good person by your peers by the large welfare state then they would vote for a large welfare state despite the fact it may not be in their best interest. likewise if it argues people

should be taking care of their cells it would be at advocate of government power much, much lower. issue radically you we on negative reshape the way or reverse europe utilization changing the rules of that game to alter incentives but both institutions and believe systems must challenge successful -- excess of reform because the actors will shape the choices. his convictions are so strong that attitudes and values is favorable enough they will have institutional restraints sofa does come

back to attitudes and expectations they be need to buy more than shift economic incentives and the moral case for a free economy is far above the supply and demand. in the chapter i try to sketch out with the agenda might look like best economic culture the clear of those choices to avoid economic european nation. they must prioritize wealth creation over wealth redistribution and transparency and accountability.

rule of law over rule of men and property rights, a top down hope over fear and priority to openness rather than defensiveness. >> i tried to explain how they affect the institution's in these sort characteristics highlighted as prominent features of the america he visited in the 1830's. but tokyo noticed something else "in new york the gatherings in the evening's one would run shoulders with men who had spent the day in the office or a

bank, lawyers, businessmen, bankers the pleasures of society came at the end of the day where they waged a fierce battle for profit''. such a state of affairs shock to tokyo because he was dominated by men who held government captains of industry and merchants and the entrepreneur is were absent that tells us something about the disdain 1830's europe regarded business. but also something about america it was not as materialistic as many supposed -- times areas as many europeans supposed.

a the pursuit of prosperity detoqueville found was not all consuming despite the fact the commercial republic was there. achieving economic success give americans the time and material resources to pursue of knowledge, a children's education, a charity, cultivation of the arts, appreciation of beauty and prayer with the ultimate reality professor this is a vision that is at odds with the rough a andretti frontier if imagery we associate 19th century america but if a source consistent with lives and aspirations of america's

founders the most successful half founder of them all of charles carroll exemplifies. as you know, he inherited great wealth as a successful businessman he multiplied his holdings several times over and drought america he would identify things and take notes what coach would be suitable and invested in private projects to promote public works. yet many of these interests for vented carol from cultivating other scholar the interests nor did they inhibit him from long-term involvement of public affairs whether as a representative and legislature, a political

commentator, a discussion of the emerging framework and religious liberty. signing the declaration of independence and comment charles carroll put far more at risk economically speaking than any other side here he was the richest man in america at the time but his willingness to risk all this stuff for freedom demonstrates something else, his conviction that with written stuff off dispute was more than just taxes and some things are more important than money. denies for conservatives to embrace the argument that the end game is not the endless acquisition of wealth wealth is the means

but the goal is human flourishing. but its injured roll into the founding and the aspirations contained in the phrase life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. part of the happiness is to be found in pursuit of the wide-ranging and an economic interest of thomas jefferson and benjamin franklin but it can occur through the pursuit of the means to enable us to engage these interest of the moral and practical habits that are so crucial for success in business and trade and market economies. in much of western europe it

is characteristic of a culture that if people are to live fulfilling lives as is consistent to encourage wealth creation people need to be provided with things that goes into the european social model but there is little evidence of makes people happy many on long-term welfare are generally less happy than those who earn the same income but not zero welfare payment but there have been studies done on this behalf to be careful not to read

too much because correlation is not causality but they do suggest economic cultures which prioritize institutions focused on redistribution from the top down in the effort to realize ever greater equality and stability are much less successful in helping people to flourish as they ought to. franklin wrote never made a man happy but never will it but how one achieves wealth or gains in income does seem when we think of something and materialistic as human floor -- flourishing but those values associated with

equalization tend to have materialistic use a collectivist systems are an extreme example but the american founders knew when they associated the word liberty with the phrase pursuit of happiness. it is in the exercise of freedom including economic freedom where much of the happiness making seems to ochre the down side might be less economic security but while it is important it is not all important and certainly not enough with happiness and flourishing. the americans want to resist the european is asian they have to do more than just engage in policy.

the fight to take back america's economy to realize the dream / nightmare i would argue over the past 100 years has to be more of an argument markets verses' mixed economies for command is not lived by deficiency alone more than maximizing utility no one will go to the barricades for efficiency. and tear gas to consciously cut off economic culture and as i demonstrated in the book the roots are european over 230 years through american experience is that not even politicians savvy

as roosevelt could pull them out completely. there is no guarantee there like plants they tend to die quickly. treating the values that promote cultures let alone the aestheticians is extremely difficult in history is elicited with failure to do so. the founders said as a sacred trust their heritage of which is grounded deeply what we should call your ps civilization but americans can no whatever happens to europe if we choose to make

the right decisions something of western civilization is not only saved but transformed by new. thank you very much. [applause] >> we will take of you questions as he will take copies if we will sign those if you would like to talk further. >> i will start with one. your quote from jefferson do talk about perpetual debt says i am not among those who fear the people are running clear you telling us we might be fearing the of people? >> jefferson of course, had tremendous faith in

americans of the time but like winston churchill america will do the right thing after they tried everything else. but it divvying said schiff such talk about at length with the free markets and not as favorable as they used to be is disturbing when it comes to young people to preferred models and institutions compared to america's heritage. that is disturbing long-term it tells me those in favor of free markets are not doing a good job to exclude -- they tend to want to be inspired by have an idea if they opt for the european is

asian model that creates enormous long-term problems that democracy we reflected people want in here is what we will get. >> fade you for your perceptive understanding of the issues that confront us. the 19th century german influence with the great tradition of human flourishing is there the educational program? we're big on this issue but would you point* to those that are positive?

>> let me say something about the negative side first. mark stein said i think conservatives need to understand three weeks of rebel calls before the election is no substitute for eight or 10 years indoctrination of most educational systems wide free trade doesn't work work, business is bad and dehumanizing and, etc., etc.. if you think he will stop them with the rowboat called year after year to pick up the newspaper to see this a message. even among the of peers the messages are reinforced over and over so you must baa nasty materialist but that is a long-term prospect much

better than we are but there are many programs out there for young americans may hear not persuaded yet of the free market yet but there are programs out there ferric is a big job to explain people where these things come from and reading great books to explain to people this is our heritage and why it is important not just making economic arguments that think it is important to. the witherspoon institute, a james madison program and princeton do a good job to retrieve that makes the idea real to apply them to different segments of foreign policy. there are fine scholars to

do this type of work and their places here in washington d.c. spending time doing this. other our students you're interested in these things and what is the established orthodoxy today. there are plenty of opportunities thank there are plenty of opportunities thanks to heritage federal are available to find out where they are, how you apply and starting to work and starting to work and politics are policy with the institutional problems that i talk about. >> i am curious germany was the origin of social welfare

that they have a strong economy. do you have any insight? >> i talk about that because germany is the allied air the modern welfare state as we know it the great lover of freedom he set up the welfare state because urban industrial workers were voting for the social democratic party. he thought how we deal with it? we show them we can take care of their needs it wasn't noble but how to buy a short circuit the growing support of large numbers of people that were a political party that did more market oriented thinking perhaps

the biggest changes 1948 those two were in charge of the economy aided by a people who were passionate imposed a market system got rid of currency controls and price controls and that the market system work that resulted in germany experiencing 30 years of prosperity by the '70s and '80s it was clear germany moved back and by the '90s it made the economies stagnate. in the early 2000 the germany government decided they couldn't keep going

this way so they had selective liberalization of the economy and it paid off but the political prize is they were thrown out of office to prove the point* so with serious economic reform you should more or less expect to be thrown out of office but with their own economic history they have a certain tradition of market oriented thinking of those whose struggle to do so it is in memory of the way things used to be like the way germans in general don't like inflation and they're very nervous. why? they saw what it did to germany and austria in the

eyes of the political consequences of that. i think that helps to explain why it has more or less managed to resist the european is asian but there are some attitudes and beliefs that enable a germans to go back to say this is part of our tradition it is non-american but as germans out economic culture really matters. >> i am german myself. i have a greater idea how you can as a matter of communicating to show european paychecks that would be a nice wake-up call.

but with unemployment seven point* 8% isn't that critical because people who are unemployed right now can create things over a generation so with the crisis of 2008 leads to something that persist for a longer time with the landscape of the country. >> right. seven point* 9% official unemployment rate that real rates is higher many have just got to looking for work so the security that falls from unemployment that politicians react in certain

ways to provide security through this state as heritage says once you set it up it is difficult due dismantle because they develop their own interest and agenda that has nothing to do with people they try to help but once these are in place politically it is harder over time not just to dismantle the question than national health service in britain and i can tell you from personal experience nationalized is terrible by any objective standard of quality of health care, speed of delivery is terrible. people will say free the service we get is

bad, everyone to serious operation reid go to the united states or germany. if you ask british people do think we should move towards a liberalization to let more market forces work? no. you simply cannot do that. one very nice young lady lady, idealistic said the national health service is part of a jewel of britain's crown. >> but it is bankrupt and it doesn't work. [laughter] but the reaction is we care enough that we're willing to exception these things to help people but you're not helping people. that is an example of how a

programmer institution become so embedded that rooting out is almost impossible you cannot get conservative politicians to criticize the national service tried to reform on the edges but it does not work to say it is not doing what it should be doing that israel quick way of electoral rejection but once they are in place they can stay around for a long time. >> with the fertility rate their weaker now than 100 years ago they seem to be stronger but what impact with the economics and politics if you eliminate the to the being institutions all that is

left is the individual or state. >> i talk a lot about both of these issues i do get into the married issue as a consequence. believes single european country is below the placement rate crease is one point* three the only country that meets the replacement rate britain is not too far but ireland is replacing the population. why? it has to do with falling mortality rates and babies are born aid donor dies quickly so people like choosing not to have more

children and the availability of contraception and abortion have contributed but there is also a welfare state once upon a time when it was minimalist it once it comes then it takes away into generational bonds thicket replaced by the state so people would have the economic motive for having more children because there are some children around to take care of them in their old age. is called the old age a motive for you -- fertility but it breaks the links. sow to reflect my responsibility they have a

huge problem that people say they may not articulate but i need to have children because i will be taking care of by the welfare state so somebody else's children pay for you as well as their own. this creates incentives for non fertility. it is a materialistic explanation and it is more complicated with other factors that it is a real factor. doesn't have any effect in the united states? yes. california is europe. rarely is every measurable effect would also attitudes and beliefs and expectations have made their choice it is not a coincidence not just leaving the state budget having fewer and fewer

children. a good example how the state can crowd out other institutions of the long term challenges for those that they try to help. >> to mention several times with those costs in the long-term effects. >> there are economic cost of social democracy, less productivity increased regulation, etc., etc. but with the right sense of responsibility of themselves before their families. the state takes care of

that, right? the other is a moral cost of expectations that i am entitled to certain things as a matter of right without any explanation or they come from even the language of moral discourse becomes corroded, and breaks down wear writes the are the trump card because that violates -- violates my rights those with political discourse also expecting other people who you don't know also to bests -- basically paid for your. i should be responsible for myself and my family to break down.

it leads to a human flourishing being doled i am natalie transforming work but myself. to give you an example, not to be upon the french, i like them but studies were done of french university students who had studied at the elite institutions that train political business and i asked people who are graduating what they wanted to do with their lives. 70 percent said they wanted to be a civil servant. why? you don't have to work very hard, paid pretty well, a

great vacation, a general pension, all of this is to say that cost is a lack of dynamism or alack to take risk. life is about taking risks if you just opt for stability or the status quo you will not flourish as a person but be stagnant as the economy around you. have to understand person, the nature of the world but there is not much doubt social democracy has a deadening effect on the capacity to become what we want to be. [applause] >> in 2002 iran working with

us secretly with the afghan situation will go up one morning to find out they were part of the axis of evil. there were quite puzzled having fought a war with iraq and had nothing to do with north korea, why were they part of the access of evil? had to do with the u.s. and iranian relationship that was undermined with the speech we've been going to and fro over this was 2003 and the iraq war one of the two on winnable wars to ring gauge in the past decade. obama unfortunately comes in with very little background

of foreign policy, never paid much attention, served in washington only two years. i was a very enthusiastic supporter of obama and remain but we new national security could be a problem. and appointed as secretary of state and secretary of defense and a retired marine general for domestic reasons and he lasted one year and putting in leon panetta and know he is your neighbor in california but captured by the mentality of the cia. this was an extremely weak national security team. obama also was ruled by the military that is how you got the surge of forces. i think he realizes he was had and that is important

and why i am optimistic about the second term this is a wiser man with foreign policy but he has ended the war in iraq meandering to ending the war in afghanistan and allowing the pentagon with the motor skills of a dinosaur such as a timetable for withdrawal all obama has to do i look at the gorbachev experience, and came in 1985, gave a secret speech 1986 faugh denouncing afghanistan, had told shultz we are getting out with one year to turn around and then announced a timetable then

we were gone in 89. we need to do something similar. we had 11 commanders in afghanistan in the 11 years. look at the book if the generals that is not of war where we can be successful. there is no military that is ever successful with a counterinsurgency and they have been ally in pakistan that makes the picture confusing to disengage from a situation where you are supporting perfectly integrated enterprise called the car's side government. but refined doorway with the

resolution of crisis but i don't know how many years this will take. >> my optimism that team john kerry and chuck hegel are good a pate -- appointments i wonder why obama wasted time with susan rice when we have somebody like john kerry who was devoted to the position of secretary of state chuck hegel is so wonderful nomination and the criticism of him frankly is silly. people throw that around so loosely it is embarrassing. if you go back to the book

but the israeli lobby is jewish i don't understand the debate i think it will slither away because it doesn't make sense he is a sound man. was very disappointed when obama made the trade is the director barry he took care of that himself and gave adultery a bad name but what was a bomb the thinking taking active duty for four-star general was strong policy vision that there would have to grapple with? it cannot think of a better scenario for intelligence

and pretorius at the ncaa. he did not want to put that in the hands of policy makers they were created to challenge military intelligence when they have done job correctly that is what they have done with arms control.

>> host: why did rewrite to this book? the first book was king's in central america. >> guest: i get into the themes of segregation from